a-train Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 It is hilarious how traditional Christians think that the Bible is just totally proven archeologically. Do you realize that we have little or no archeological evidence of virtually ALL of the old testament? The Muslims are great at pointing out the great lack of evidence for Judeo-Christians. There is virtually nothing to support the New Testament at all. We don't have the graves of ANY biblical figures, just unproven traditions. We have no archeology to prove anything more than Israel existed, but the existance of most of the biblical characters is totally without any archeological benefit at all, much less their activities. We have no original manuscripts of the Bible, we have no artifacts from the Temples, we have virtually nothing. The great house of Solomon is left with not a shred of evidence. Conveniently, the Jews tell us the Babylonians purposely levelled everything that one stone stood not upon another. They AND Joseph Smith should be ashamed right? Everything we have comes from tradition and the Bible. It has been proven that there are great similarities in Native American tradition and Book or Mormon material, but it could easily be argued that Joseph Smith purposely incorporated that into the Book of Mormon. Just the same could be said about the traditions based on the Bible. Why do so many Christians believe their Bible has been proven by the scientists? Because there are gypsy-like 'scientists' selling them that story. I especially love those that claim to have found the ark of the covenant, or Noah's ark, and so forth. Blush! -a-train
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Thank you Yediyd. You are sincere. There are many things that change lives though. How many people's lives have been changed by the NBA? How about the lottery? There is change in peoples lives. I think that is valuable but I don't think that is the only important thing as "proof."
Guest Yediyd Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Thank you Yediyd. You are sincere. There are many things that change lives though. How many people's lives have been changed by the NBA? How about the lottery? There is change in peoples lives. I think that is valuable but I don't think that is the only important thing as "proof."Very good point, my friend...but the change I am refering to is a change of heart...I have learned how to love...Only the power from on high taught me that...check out my testimony in my blog...if you would like to know more...I have no agenda to convert you, I just testify from my heart and I AM sincere, thank you for recognising that! God bless!Yediyd
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Sorry a-train, we must have crossed posts. The historicity of the Bible is much stronger than any other historical book for a reason. === Yediyd, Thank you for your post. I will read your blog at a later time but I will. Thank you for that invitation. "His word will not return void" That is probably something we should really understand.
Guest mamacat Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 why do you wish to phase LDS beliefs Dr. T?Various reasons that I'm picking up as I learn about Christianity from Bible reading Cat.are you trying to convert us?
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 No one will ever convert because of me. Like I said, I'm learning and I see differences. I like being here, like the people and have fun. Christianity is my life now, thank God, and I'm posting my thoughts as they come up. Do with them what you want.
a-train Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Sorry a-train, we must have crossed posts. The historicity of the Bible is much stronger than any other historical book for a reason.Look, LDS people would love to say something like that. Really. I would love it if there were mountains of great evidence for the Bible. If scientists located the tomb of Isaiah and some original scrolls I would leap for joy. If a vault were discovered with the precious temple artifacts, I would be thrilled! If even a small indication that the amount of gold necessary for Solomon's temple could have been in possession of the Jews, I would like to see it! The LDS people were just as excited with the Dead Sea Scrolls as the rest of Judeo-Christianity.But, saying the Bible's historicity is stronger than ANY other historical book is HIGHLY debatable. I mean, come on. The oldest known manuscripts are hundreds of years younger than the history they speak of. A great majority of the cities and people of the Bible are simply unproven archeologically. Much of the content sounds like some seriously tall tales. Parting of seas, a global dilluge survived by 8 persons in a wooden vessel with countless animals on board, water to wine, walking on water, etc., etc., etc.Why don't we have Egyptologists telling us of the Egyptian record of Jacob and his family and the mighty Joseph? Oh yeah, conveniently the Jews had a falling out with the Egyptians and that must have been erased by those mean old Pharoahs right?Is there one compelling scientific discovery that has not come under debate? The Bible requires no more faith to believe than the Book of Mormon and men either know it or they are outrageously misinformed.-a-train
Guest Yediyd Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 No one will ever convert because of me. Like I said, I'm learning and I see differences. I like being here, like the people and have fun. Christianity is my life now, thank God, and I'm posting my thoughts as they come up. Do with them what you want.Dr. T,You and your cat are very welcomed and loved up here.
Guest mamacat Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 No one will ever convert because of me. Like I said, I'm learning and I see differences. I like being here, like the people and have fun. Christianity is my life now, thank God, and I'm posting my thoughts as they come up. Do with them what you want.oh my goodness, i am so sorry Dr. T. it just kind of seems as though you're telling the mormon people here why they're wrong for being mormons. just rather surprised to encounter that here.peace, man.
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 A great majority of the cities and people of the Bible are simply unproven archeologically. Like who and what? What of the other people and places that have been identified? The oldest known manuscripts are hundreds of years younger than the history they speak of.Comparing the oldest manuscripts that we poses with the newest one's we find, the similarities are like 99.9% the same. Through the years they have stood the test of time. ===THank you Yediyd. :) ===Cat, I'm just saying I can't accept LDS beliefs as they compare to my own beliefs. There are differences. That's all I'm saying.
Guest Yediyd Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Dr. T, I just read in the High / low thread that your kitty was killed by a dog. I'm sorry to hear that, but at least now you can come join the party!
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 AGAIN "THAT WAS NOT MY CAT!!!" That was a cat my wife/children helped fix. That's the point-it was a cat that lived in our house temporarily and they wanted to keep it but as I told them, "That is not our cat." There is a cat in our house now, Sassy, but again, "She is not MY cat by my children's."
Guest Yediyd Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 AGAIN "THAT WAS NOT MY CAT!!!" That was a cat my wife/children helped fix. That's the point-it was a cat that lived in our house temporarily and they wanted to keep it but as I told them, "That is not our cat." There is a cat in our house now, Sassy, but again, "She is not MY cat by my children's."OK, OK, OK,....not your cat...I get it....So...thought of a name for your cat, yet? Hummmmmmmmmm?
a-train Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 A great majority of the cities and people of the Bible are simply unproven archeologically. Like who and what? What of the other people and places that have been identified?Like who what?What non-biblical evidence do we have of Anything before the flood? Noah and his family? The flood itself (There are at least some non-biblical myths and legends on this one)? Abraham? Isaac? Jacob? The Twelve Sons? Moses? The Exodus? Joshua? Jericho? David and Solomon? The Temple and it's artifacts? etc. etc. Did you know there is not a single solitary shred of evidence for anything in the Bible before the 13th century B.C.? Were you aware that in the 1950's, Jews renamed various sites throughout modern Israel after traditional Biblical names? These places had not been so called in around 1900 years. How did they know how to do it? Archeology and science right? WRONG. Tradition.Even the Bible believing scholars on site admit the great lack of proof. The scientists out there have found very little. In fact they have found more to contradict the Bible than they have to support it and many of them have been re-interpreting it to fit their findings.Take Israel Finkelstein for example, do some searching around on this guy and see his credentials and his assertions.Oh yes, there are many Christians going around applauding archeology and science as proof of their religion, but the actual Professors are just laughing.Let's imagine for a moment that archeology did prove the Bible. Oh those poor millions, no billions, who died without that proof! Right? Could we have accepted it? What basis would we have had to do so? Are those who lived without that proof in disbelief accountable for their lack of faith?Nonsense. It has always been the same and always will be. Archeology has proven nothing and the laboratory in which we will find God has always been and always will be the human heart and nowhere else.-a-train
CrimsonKairos Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Let's get down to basics: We have no physical proof that the source of Christianity--Jesus Christ--even existed. Where's the manger? His woodwork? The crown of thorns? The scourge? The red cloak? The cross? The nails? The spear/lance? His burial clothes? If we can't even prove that Jesus existed, what value is there in proving that other figures tangential to The Master existed? So what if we can prove that certain cities in the Old Testament really existed? Does Jericho's historicity prove Christ's divinity? No. Archeological remains do not preach sermons or convert hearts. The Holy Ghost does that, and He doesn't leave pottery shards or smoke stains or bone fragments in his wake. The still, small voice always speaks louder than all the evidence in the world.
vinny15 Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Thank you all for your comments. I'm just saying that the Bible has been shown over and over to be an accurate representation on many issues (people, places, etc) that can still be found today. I know you have faith that the BOM is true like I have faith that the Bible is true. It comes down to faith. I agree. I'm just saying there are real evidences of the bible, not some things that "can be" a pyramid that looks like a hill. The egyptian pyramids have been around for more than 1600 years and they still look like pyramids. That's all I'm saying. Thank you for pointing out the climate differences CK. I understand that. I also understand that no counter evidence that it cannot scholarly be supported will phase any of your beliefs.Wow I didnt understand until recently that people believe in the bible because of the proof. I believe in the bible because the bible and the BoM comment each other so well. I believe because of pure faith and the way God has answered my prayers. Obviously the evidence of the BoM isnt very conclusive except for the Tree of life stone the name glyphs are the selling point, but they could all be disproven in a day. Yes the evidence say the BoM "can be" but that means you should give it a good try and see if it "is" or "will be".
vinny15 Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Dr. T When you pray and go to church do you feel the spirit. Is it something that you cant explain. Or do you rely on the fact that you can explain it and that its impenetrable evidence. I love the evidence, but I love the spirit more.
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 You both think that it has not been shown that even Jesus didn't exist on Earth? There are extra-biblical verification that someone named Jesus, who claimed to be the savior, did exist. As for OT, things like this link, http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-sbd2.htm lead to info about archeology and the OT===Hi Vinny,I know they are both important sir. :)
sixpacktr Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 You both think that it has not been shown that even Jesus didn't exist on Earth? There are extra-biblical verification that someone named Jesus, who claimed to be the savior, did exist. Hey T,Where are those references? I seem to remember Time or Newsweek several years ago (during Christmas or Easter, whenever they do their slam on Christianity that we are all idiots for believing in Christ) stating that the "Jesus Seminar" or some such committee of people had found no evidence of Christ other than the gospels, but only a passing reference of some guy named Joshua crying something like "the east wind is coming" or something like that (the east wind is bad, apparently). So they poo poo'd the whole doctrine of Christ being God's son, etc., etc. You know how that goes then.So if you have anything, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 That is not surprising. The "Jesus Seminar" are a bunch of people that take away Jesus' words from the Bible "because he didn't really say X." They attack the bible. The references would be like Josephus. Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian pend this: About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. - Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 (Based on the translation of Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library.) As you see, this is referencing Jesus/Messiah
vinny15 Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Oh you got me wrong. I know there are evidences of christ all over the world, but I dot center my faith on those evidences. There like an extra thing on the side. I know christ lived because I feel it inside of me. Not because some scholar told me so. Im not denying the evidences in any way. The fair skinned god of the new world. The aztecs thought it was hernandez if I remember right. The fare skinned god quetzolcoatle(spelling) was infact born of a virgin and came down in a pillar of light (born and died same time as jesus) according to mayan theology. He than promised to return.(I.E. second coming) There are even depictions of quetzlecoatle on a cross. You see the BoM reasures us that God is a just god and doesnt choose one people over another. According to our docterine every man, woman, and child will here the gosple to its fullnes. Hence baptisms for the dead. Show me another church as just as ours and ill show you my third arm. Dont get me wrong the other churches teach great things and bits and pieces of the gosple. They are all great people as well im sure.
a-train Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Dr. T,I don't understand. Is that link supposed to demonstrate archaeology in support of the Bible? It hardly does. It contains quotes like these:'the historical saga contained in the Bible . . . was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of human imagination''the emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan -- they emerged from within it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people -- the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron Ages. The early Israelites were -- irony of ironies -- themselves originally Canaanites!'This is typical of archaeological interpretation of the holy land.The truth is, the traditional Christians who say we can't receive any witness from the Holy Ghost and place their faith in fables of so-called 'archaeological proof' have less to stand on than the Mormons. This is why people go off to college and lose their faith (unless of course it is a private Bible college that propigates the false notion of archaeological proof).We Mormons are comfortable with little archaeological evidence, and no 'proof' at all, and we believe we have answers as to why we don' t have 'proof'.What is funny is the fact that whatever evidence IS found in the holy land, it is simply attributed to being incorporated into the 'fables' of the Bible by it's authors and not any vindication of their testament, just as the anti-mormons claim that the Book of Mormon is a folk-tale based on Ancient American dynamics.It is the double standard accepted by traditional Christians that is irk-some to Mormons. LDS indeed appreciate archaeology, but they do not place their faith in it. We place our faith in God and His answers to our prayers.-a-train
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Secular professionals often doubt the claims but like I said, it is shown to be the same places as biblical texts.
a-train Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 Secular professionals often doubt the claims but like I said, it is shown to be the same places as Book of Mormon texts. -a-train
Dr T Posted June 8, 2007 Report Posted June 8, 2007 a-train, about the Americas? Verifiable with some data that they actually existed? Weapons, buildings etc? Like the NT
Recommended Posts